Adib Posted May 20, 2008 Posted May 20, 2008 About every day life of the elementary particles (simplified) This is what I think about some of elementary particles behavior, avoiding much math. The elementary particle jumps from one location to another with the set of locations discontinuous and not linearly ordered. What is far with the standard distance can be near with the jumps. So, two particles can have an action one on the other after having taken a "distance" one from the other. The two particles could be within a limited number of jumps one from the other. Therefore, there could be an unexpected correlation. Time itself is discontinuous and not linearly ordered. So, there are no causality relationships unless time is ordered by the observation set up. Help is welcome for deducing other consequences of this behavior. Adib Ben Jebara. http://www.freewebs.com/adibbenjebara
Adib Posted May 21, 2008 Author Posted May 21, 2008 I am asked by Klaynos "how about with maths ?" : An interpretation about space and time in quantum mechanics There was a repeated experiment where at first, two protons are joined and of opposite spins. Then, the second is taken far away, and it is acted upon the first to modify its spin. The second proton will change its spin to keep it the opposite of the spin of the first. Now, if you will assume with me that we can apply the set theory ZFU to physical space, U (urelements,non sets)) being physical space, you will see that we get an interpretation of the experiment. Indeed, as it is not possible to define a usual distance in U, the second proton will not be any more far away from the first. Also, if we consider time to be U, we cannot say that the protons were separated a long time ago and that there should be no more influence. [...] There was another repeated experiment with a photon, expected to go one way, going both two quite separated ways. Here, again, if we assume something else about space, the two ways would be not that much separated. Regards, Adib Ben-Jebara. One reason why the negation of the axiom of choice is true We apply set theory with urelements (non sets) ZFU to physical space of elementary particles; we consider locations as urelements, elements of U, in number infinite. Ui is a subset of U with number of elements n. XiUi is the infinite cartesian product and a set of paths. Let us consider the set of paths of all elementary particles-locations which number is n. If n is greater than m in CC(2 through m), countable choice for k elements sets k=2 through m, the set of paths will be the void set. So, after an infinite time, physical space would become void, the universe would collapse and a Big Crunch would happen. The matter would have to go somewhere and indeed the Big Bang happened. So, n is indeed greater than m. Let us notice that physical space is infinite. It's rather complicated but what do you think ? Isn't it most likely that the negation of the axiom of choice is true ? It is like the non-euclidian geometry which is known in physics as true. Regards, Adib Ben Jebara.
Klaynos Posted May 21, 2008 Posted May 21, 2008 I am asked by Klaynos "how about with maths ?" :An interpretation about space and time in quantum mechanics There was a repeated experiment where at first, two protons are joined and of opposite spins. Then, the second is taken far away, and it is acted upon the first to modify its spin. The second proton will change its spin to keep it the opposite of the spin of the first. I think you might be talking about entanglement? In which case this is not what happens.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now